Literature DB >> 18580389

An assessment of the quality of mammography care at facilities treating medically vulnerable populations.

L Elizabeth Goldman1, Sebastien J-P A Haneuse, Diana L Miglioretti, Karla Kerlikowske, Diana S M Buist, Bonnie Yankaskas, Rebecca Smith-Bindman.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Women in medically vulnerable populations, including racial and ethnic minorities, socioeconomically disadvantaged, and residents of rural areas, experience higher breast cancer mortality than do others. Whether mammography facilities that treat vulnerable women demonstrate lower quality of care than other facilities is unknown.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the quality of mammography women receive at facilities characterized as serving a high proportion of medically vulnerable populations. RESEARCH
DESIGN: We prospectively collected self-reported breast cancer risk factor information, mammography interpretations, and cancer outcomes on 1,579,929 screening mammography examinations from 750,857 women, aged 40-80 years, attending any of 151 facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium between 1998 and 2004. To classify facilities as serving medically vulnerable populations, we used 4 criteria: educational attainment, racial/ethnic minority, household income, and rural/urban residence.
RESULTS: After adjustment for patient-level factors known to affect mammography accuracy, facilities serving vulnerable populations had significantly higher mammography specificity than did other facilities: ie, those serving a higher proportion of women who were minorities [odds ratio (OR): 1.32; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01-1.73], living in rural areas (1.45; 1.15-1.73), and with lower household income (1.33; 1.05-1.68). We observed no statistically significant differences between facilities in mammography sensitivity.
CONCLUSIONS: Facilities serving high proportions of vulnerable populations provide screening mammography with equal or better quality (as reflected in higher specificity with no corresponding decrease in sensitivity) than other facilities. Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms underlying these findings.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18580389      PMCID: PMC2674332          DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181789329

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   2.983


  46 in total

1.  State certification of mammography facilities. Final rule.

Authors: 
Journal:  Fed Regist       Date:  2002-02-06

2.  MQSA update.

Authors:  Teresa G Odle
Journal:  Radiol Technol       Date:  2003 Jan-Feb

3.  Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ in women undergoing screening mammography.

Authors:  Virginia L Ernster; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; William E Barlow; Yingye Zheng; Donald L Weaver; Gary Cutter; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Robert Rosenberg; Patricia A Carney; Karla Kerlikowske; Stephen H Taplin; Nicole Urban; Berta M Geller
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2002-10-16       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  Urban-rural differences in the quality of care for medicare patients with acute myocardial infarction.

Authors:  K Sheikh; C Bullock
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2001-03-12

Review 5.  Racial disparities in breast cancer outcome: insights into host-tumor interactions.

Authors:  Romano Demicheli; Michael W Retsky; William J M Hrushesky; Michael Baum; Isaac D Gukas; Ismail Jatoi
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2007-11-01       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Linda L Humphrey; Mark Helfand; Benjamin K S Chan; Steven H Woolf
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2002-09-03       Impact factor: 25.391

7.  Differences in breast cancer hormone receptor status and histology by race and ethnicity among women 50 years of age and older.

Authors:  Christopher I Li; Kathleen E Malone; Janet R Daling
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 4.254

8.  Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography.

Authors:  Patricia A Carney; Diana L Miglioretti; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Karla Kerlikowske; Robert Rosenberg; Carolyn M Rutter; Berta M Geller; Linn A Abraham; Steven H Taplin; Mark Dignan; Gary Cutter; Rachel Ballard-Barbash
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2003-02-04       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Differences in breast cancer stage, treatment, and survival by race and ethnicity.

Authors:  Christopher I Li; Kathleen E Malone; Janet R Daling
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2003-01-13

10.  Screening mammography performance and cancer detection among black women and white women in community practice.

Authors:  Karminder S Gill; Bonnie C Yankaskas
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2004-01-01       Impact factor: 6.860

View more
  11 in total

1.  Disparities in screening mammography services by race/ethnicity and health insurance.

Authors:  Garth H Rauscher; Kristi L Allgood; Steve Whitman; Emily Conant
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2011-09-23       Impact factor: 2.681

2.  Facility characteristics do not explain higher false-positive rates in diagnostic mammography at facilities serving vulnerable women.

Authors:  L Elizabeth Goldman; Rod Walker; Diana L Miglioretti; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; And Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 2.983

3.  Availability of Advanced Breast Imaging at Screening Facilities Serving Vulnerable Populations.

Authors:  Christoph I Lee; Andy Bogart; Jessica C Germino; L Elizabeth Goldman; Rebecca A Hubbard; Jennifer S Haas; Deirdre A Hill; Anna Na Tosteson; Jennifer A Alford-Teaster; Wendy B DeMartini; Constance D Lehman; Tracy L Onega
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2015-06-15       Impact factor: 2.136

4.  Timeliness of follow-up after abnormal screening mammogram: variability of facilities.

Authors:  Robert D Rosenberg; Sebastien J P A Haneuse; Berta M Geller; Diana S M Buist; Diana L Miglioretti; R James Brenner; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Stephen H Taplin
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-09-07       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Accuracy of diagnostic mammography at facilities serving vulnerable women.

Authors:  L Elizabeth Goldman; Rod Walker; Diana L Miglioretti; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 2.983

6.  Prevalence and correlates of false-positive results after 3-D screening mammography among uninsured women in a community outreach program.

Authors:  Rasmi G Nair; Simon J Craddock Lee; Hong Zhu; Firouzeh K Arjmandi; Emily Berry; Keith E Argenbright; Jasmin A Tiro; Celette Sugg Skinner
Journal:  Prev Med Rep       Date:  2022-04-05

7.  Timeliness of abnormal screening and diagnostic mammography follow-up at facilities serving vulnerable women.

Authors:  L Elizabeth Goldman; Rod Walker; Rebecca Hubbard; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 2.983

8.  Mammographic screening interval in relation to tumor characteristics and false-positive risk by race/ethnicity and age.

Authors:  Ellen S O'Meara; Weiwei Zhu; Rebecca A Hubbard; Dejana Braithwaite; Karla Kerlikowske; Kim L Dittus; Berta Geller; Karen J Wernli; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2013-08-26       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  Identifying key barriers to effective breast cancer control in rural settings.

Authors:  Brian L Sprague; Thomas P Ahern; Sally D Herschorn; Michelle Sowden; Donald L Weaver; Marie E Wood
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2021-07-22       Impact factor: 4.018

10.  Mammographic screening in Sami speaking municipalities and a control group. Are early outcome measures influenced by ethnicity?

Authors:  Jan Norum; Solveig Hofvind; Carsten Nieder; Edrun Andrea Schnell; Ann Ragnhild Broderstad
Journal:  Int J Circumpolar Health       Date:  2012-04-16       Impact factor: 1.228

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.